That Old-Time Religion

It used to be said that in polite circles, the two subjects never to be raised at the dinner table were politics and religion. But when the two come together in a presidential campaign, well, toss out the rulebook and dig in.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney knows what it's like to be on the receiving end of such a food fight. His predicted cakewalk to the Republican nomination long ago had begun to turn into a long, hard slog thanks to his performance in GOP debates, his flip-flops on issues considered dear to social conservatives, and a growing perception that he might be too smooth by half. Then Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas who is an ordained Baptist minister, began to make moves in Iowa, where the caucuses are less than a month away. Suddenly, religion and politics were at the table.

Huckabee wouldn't say it, but plenty of his followers and interested observers from the religious right began a not-so-subtle campaign of questioning Romney's faith, which is grounded in the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Words not normally heard in a campaign -- cult, heresy -- were tossed about. Political reporters, columnists and bloggers all began to wonder out loud if Romney wouldn't be mortally wounded (metaphorically speaking) unless he addressed the issue of his Mormon faith.

Be careful what you wish for. After hinting for several weeks that he would not address the issue in a manner similar to the way John F. Kennedy addressed his Roman Catholic faith before Houston ministers in 1960, Romney showed up in College Station, Texas, on Thursday for his own version of the faith speech. If early reviews are an indication, the culture warriors will have to find something else to battle about.

Michael Gerson saw the speech as not a JFK moment. Rather, he noted that Romney "declared his independence from the Kennedy model."

Gerson focused on the task at hand. "Kennedy's speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association sought to put an uncomfortable topic behind him -- and it succeeded. ... Romney, in contrast, raised the topic of religion to reassert his relevance in a campaign that seems to be spinning out of his control."

E.J. Dionne Jr. also saw political opportunism in what he also regarded as a "remarkable speech ... on religious liberty."

"Romney's speech ... was by turns brilliant and frustrating, inspiring yet also transparently political in its effort to find the precise balance that would satisfy Republican primary voters," Dionne wrote.

Kathleen Parker, however, thought Romney pretty much accomplished what he set out to do: "He made two important points clear: Freedom and religious liberty are inextricably linked. And, though Romney's religion informs his life, leaders of his church will not inform his decisions as president."

David S. Broder looked back 42 years to the time when Mitt Romney's father, George Romney, also sought the presidency and his faith likewise became something he needed to explain to voters. Broder assesses how well the son did when compared to the father, then leaves the reader with this parting thought: Romney's "religion is not an issue. And the Constitution means what it says: No religious test for public office."

Meanwhile Huckabee, the (second) man from Hope, was discovering that the spotlight can also be a bull's-eye. Richard Cohen thought that it should be Huckabee, not Romney, giving a speech to explain why his religion is not a threat to American life. And Charles Krauthammer said Huckabee was playing a religion card in a country whose Constitution "explicitly rejects any religious test for office."

If Oprah's appearances with Democratic candidate Barack Obama this weekend don't suck all the oxygen out of this stage of Campaign 2008, count the Romney-Huckabee tussle over religion as at least one issue that got the juices flowing. But perhaps not as a defining moment.

And now, a final word about the change of thinking by U.S. intelligence agencies on their previous assessments that Iran might be seeking a nuclear weapons capability. The remarkable National Intelligence Estimate issued Monday didn't discount that possibility. It just noted that Iran discontinued its efforts -- in 2003. Wrote David Ignatius, "That document was as close to a U-turn as one sees in the intelligence world."

Ignatius' analysis takes the reader a long way toward understanding the work behind this remarkable U-turn. Jim Hoagland's column on the same subject leaves one with the thought of who is now in the driver's seat.

"The intelligence community has made itself a separate agency of government, answerable essentially to itself," wrote Hoagland. "This NIE makes clear that for better or worse, spy agencies today make the finished product of policy rather than providing the raw materials."

Have faith in it.

James Hill is managing editor of The Washington Post Writers Group.